I think the possibility of Mitt's nomination as republican presidential candidate is sure enough we can speculate on running mates.

This morning driving in to work I was listening to yet another interview with SC Gov. Nikki Haley (R). She has a book out and is apparently promoting it. Is the timing coincident? I don't think so. Seriously, does a governor not have enough to do that they can randomly make time to go on a book promotion tour?

I think she's eyeing up that vp spot next to Rom. She sure sucked up to him in this mornings interview.

She supposedly said the other day that she wouldn't accept the VP slot if offered. I know, I know... easy enough to say this stuff in April. But I also feel that one of Romney's aides would neck-punch the guy and replace him with a robot before allowing him to pick a young, attractive female governor half way through her first term as his VP choice.

I get the feeling that his choice will be as non-controversial as possible. Not sure who but it won't be Haley, it won't be Rubio, it won't be Rand Paul.

I think that Mitt Mormon is so far left, he's going to attract independents by himself. I think if he wants to have a chance to win, he has to do something to attract the conservative wing of the Republican Party, and "not being Barack Obama" isn't going to be enough.

That leads me to believe he's going to tap a Tea Party or other ultra-conservative, youngish Republican to be his running mate.

There's also an off chance he's stopped the attack adds on Rick Santorum because he's planning on forming a coalition with him and offering him the VP spot.

I would argue at this point, the Republican Party is split into 3 factions. The ultra-conservative/Tea Party type, the "plain old conservative" establishment, and more moderate conservatives. So let's call them 1, 2, and 3 with the lower the number being the more conservative.

If I were trying to get the votes of all 3 factions, and my presidential candidate was a 3, wouldn't it make the most sense to tap a 1 as VP? Most of the 2s are going to fall in line anyway, and it's the 1s you really risk losing to some other ultra-conservative 3rd party (like Gary Johnson or that nutcase Ron Paul).

Rubio may not be the right choice, but I think an ultra-conservative is the best bet if you want to give Mitt Mormon the best chance to win. As I said previosuly, he's far enough left that he's going to attract disillusioned independents no matter who his running mate is.

Rubio (or Jindal) also make sensebecause they are younger than most of the VP candidates being kicked around, and if they want to give Mitt the best chance to win, they have to take some of the younger voters away from Obama.

I would argue at this point, the Republican Party is split into 3 factions. The ultra-conservative/Tea Party type, the "plain old conservative" establishment, and more moderate conservatives. So let's call them 1, 2, and 3 with the lower the number being the more conservative.

If I were trying to get the votes of all 3 factions, and my presidential candidate was a 3, wouldn't it make the most sense to tap a 1 as VP? Most of the 2s are going to fall in line anyway, and it's the 1s you really risk losing to some other ultra-conservative 3rd party (like Gary Johnson or that nutcase Ron Paul).

Rubio may not be the right choice, but I think an ultra-conservative is the best bet if you want to give Mitt Mormon the best chance to win. As I said previosuly, he's far enough left that he's going to attract disillusioned independents no matter who his running mate is.

Rubio (or Jindal) also make sensebecause they are younger than most of the VP candidates being kicked around, and if they want to give Mitt the best chance to win, they have to take some of the younger voters away from Obama.

I would argue at this point, the Republican Party is split into 3 factions. The ultra-conservative/Tea Party type, the "plain old conservative" establishment, and more moderate conservatives. So let's call them 1, 2, and 3 with the lower the number being the more conservative.

If I were trying to get the votes of all 3 factions, and my presidential candidate was a 3, wouldn't it make the most sense to tap a 1 as VP? Most of the 2s are going to fall in line anyway, and it's the 1s you really risk losing to some other ultra-conservative 3rd party (like Gary Johnson or that nutcase Ron Paul).

Rubio may not be the right choice, but I think an ultra-conservative is the best bet if you want to give Mitt Mormon the best chance to win. As I said previosuly, he's far enough left that he's going to attract disillusioned independents no matter who his running mate is.

Rubio (or Jindal) also make sensebecause they are younger than most of the VP candidates being kicked around, and if they want to give Mitt the best chance to win, they have to take some of the younger voters away from Obama.

I disagree mainly because I am one of those type 1s so can speak from my own experience. I'm unlikely to vote for a 3rd party if Mitt chooses an ultra-conservative., but if Mitt chooses another moderate as VP, that could change.

Also, it's not so much that the 1s are going to vote 3rd party, as that they may not be motivated enough to get out and vote in the numbers Romneyt will need to win.

I would argue at this point, the Republican Party is split into 3 factions. The ultra-conservative/Tea Party type, the "plain old conservative" establishment, and more moderate conservatives. So let's call them 1, 2, and 3 with the lower the number being the more conservative.

If I were trying to get the votes of all 3 factions, and my presidential candidate was a 3, wouldn't it make the most sense to tap a 1 as VP? Most of the 2s are going to fall in line anyway, and it's the 1s you really risk losing to some other ultra-conservative 3rd party (like Gary Johnson or that nutcase Ron Paul).

Rubio may not be the right choice, but I think an ultra-conservative is the best bet if you want to give Mitt Mormon the best chance to win. As I said previosuly, he's far enough left that he's going to attract disillusioned independents no matter who his running mate is.

Rubio (or Jindal) also make sensebecause they are younger than most of the VP candidates being kicked around, and if they want to give Mitt the best chance to win, they have to take some of the younger voters away from Obama.

I disagree mainly because I am one of those type 1s so can speak from my own experience. I'm unlikely to vote for a 3rd party if Mitt chooses an ultra-conservative., but if Mitt chooses another moderate as VP, that could change.

Also, it's not so much that the 1s are going to vote 3rd party, as that they may not be motivated enough to get out and vote in the numbers Romneyt will need to win.

Agree to disagree. I'm not so sure that you're representative of the typical ultraconservative/TP'er.

I'm thinking after this whole contraception hullabaloo it's gotta be a woman, but not one crazy or inexperienced enough to get woman to vote against him.

Unfortunately, that leaves few options.

T-Bagger: Please vote for a 3rd party candidate. That'd be swell.

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 11:20am by Omegavegeta

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

Mitt has had to pull fairly far to the right in the primaries. I'll speculate who he chooses will come down in part to how far back towards the center they feel he can drift. I mean originally I thought he'd choose one of the more conservative of the bunch to rally the base, but lately, yeah, and I wonder how big of a rift there really is in the party there too.

I disagree mainly because I am one of those type 1s so can speak from my own experience. I'm unlikely to vote for a 3rd party if Mitt chooses an ultra-conservative., but if Mitt chooses another moderate as VP, that could change.

Also, it's not so much that the 1s are going to vote 3rd party, as that they may not be motivated enough to get out and vote in the numbers Romneyt will need to win.

Downvoted for having a different political affiliation to me.

____________________________

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

And yeah, I doubt I'm representative of the typical ultra-conservative, mainly because I'm mostly a fiscal (that word always looks funny when I type it) ultra-conservative while being mush more moderate in my views on social things. I do not, however, in any way consider myself a libertarian. I just think Mitt needs somebody who is that social ultra-conservative to offset his obviously checkered past on numerous issues.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that to win this election, the Republican Party has to get it's constituency excited to go out and vote. Mitt Romney doesn't do that for me, and I doubt he does it for most Republicans, but especially the Tea Party types. To get them excited, you're going to have to pair him with someone they can get excited about. That means someone young and ultra-conservative.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. If we are talking about the same thing, even if it is a joke, it's still resorting to (jokingly) name calling, which is an ad hominem attack in its simplest form, right?

Rubio may not be the right choice, but I think an ultra-conservative is the best bet if you want to give Mitt Mormon the best chance to win. As I said previosuly, he's far enough left that he's going to attract disillusioned independents no matter who his running mate is.

I happen to think Rubio would be a good choice. Maybe not the best one, but while he's well regarded by the Tea Party, he is not seen in the same "wild eyed crazy" way as some other Tea Party leaders (except by the far far left of course, who don't really count anyway). He's Latino, which helps. There are a lot of Latino voters who lean to the right, but tend to be afraid of certain issues (immigration specifically) if anyone but a Latino conservative is talking about them. His stance on immigration does not hurt him with mainstream Latino voters at all.

The bigger issue IMO, and one which Rubio may or may not address is the south. And before anyone starts throwing knowing looks and saying "southern strategy", the reality is that the primaries have shown that Romney is weak in the south (duh). His VP pick pretty much absolutely has to be someone who can get voters in southern states to vote GOP. There's a fair number of possibilities to be honest.

It will not be Santorum. Too much baggage. It probably wont be Gingrich. He's too similar to Romney in the eyes of voters (although he is stronger in the south). It has to be someone who will be viewed positively by religious right conservatives, but not be scary to moderates and independents. That's going to be tricky IMO, but doable. He might go for a woman, but the pickings are slim. Not because there aren't plenty of conservative women who could do the job, but because the left tends to single them out for special attention and assault (can't allow women to choose to be anything but liberal you know!) so most of them have been so demonized (or are afraid of being Palinized), that any choice can end out being dangerous.

Quote:

Rubio (or Jindal) also make sensebecause they are younger than most of the VP candidates being kicked around, and if they want to give Mitt the best chance to win, they have to take some of the younger voters away from Obama.

Yeah. I agree to that as well. Although it doesn't necessarily have to be about hip appeal. They got that with Obama and young voters are largely unhappy with the result. I think that this time around, they just need to get the message that fun and games and clever idealistic slogans are great, but if you're young and want to have a good job when you get out of school, voting Republican will be a better choice. Obama's already provided enough failed promises and hopes and dreams to fill the negative side of that equation. Just need to present an alternative and appeal to young voters taking responsibility for building a better tomorrow, not just voting for hope and seeing it dashed.

Yeah. I agree to that as well. Although it doesn't necessarily have to be about hip appeal. They got that with Obama and young voters are largely unhappy with the result. I think that this time around, they just need to get the message that fun and games and clever idealistic slogans are great, but if you're young and want to have a good job when you get out of school, voting Republican will be a better choice. Obama's already provided enough failed promises and hopes and dreams to fill the negative side of that equation. Just need to present an alternative and appeal to young voters taking responsibility for building a better tomorrow, not just voting for hope and seeing it dashed.

I agree. Here's what I'm looking at, though. Mitt Romney is 64 years old. To someone my age (34), he is past the time when economic policies are going to seriously affect the rest of his life, even if he wasn't a multi-millionaire. Someone like Marco Rubio (40), Bobby Jindal (40), or even Chris Christie (50) are going to appeal on a completely different level to young voters than someone like Rick Santorum (54), Newt Gingrich (69), or Ron Paul (77).

I also do see Romney picking a woman as his running mate simply because of the circus that has surrounded Sarah Palin for the last 4 years. As you said, it seems the left and the leftist media have a special place in their hearts for launching attacks against female conservatives.

In the end, I just see Romney choosing someone young and ultra-conservative because it balances the ticket in multiple ways. Unfortunately, I can't think of anybody who matches that description other than Rubio and Jindal.

Edit: There are obviously reasons other than age that Gingrich and Paul won't get the VP nod, but that's what this post was about and they were easy examples to make.

You really shouldn't use a term like "ultra-conservative" without clearly defining what you mean. Trust me, it means radically different things to different people.

I've said what I meant by it throughout the thread if you read the rest of the posts. And really I'm just using it as a label to differentiate the person from the more moderate Romney.

I have read the rest of your posts. That's why I said what I said. You've been incredibly inconsistent with your use of the phrase "ultra-conservative":

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Eske Esquire wrote:

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

I would argue at this point, the Republican Party is split into 3 factions. The ultra-conservative/Tea Party type, the "plain old conservative" establishment, and more moderate conservatives. So let's call them 1, 2, and 3 with the lower the number being the more conservative.

I disagree mainly because I am one of those type 1s so can speak from my own experience.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

And yeah, I doubt I'm representative of the typical ultra-conservative, mainly because I'm mostly a fiscal (that word always looks funny when I type it) ultra-conservative while being mush more moderate in my views on social things

So the Tea Party is "ultra-conservative". Which is what you are, but Mitt is not. And you're a fiscal conservative and moderate socially. Oh. And I think I accidentally left out some bit where you put social-ultra-conservative in a post (and I don't feel like finding it and adding in the quote). The problem is that while I agree that the Tea Party is most focused on fiscal conservative positions, most on the left will insist that they are socially conservative as well (mostly as a "gotta have a boogieman" thing). So you match what the Tea Party is, but not what it's perceived to be. But you don't place Romney in the same group. But that group is exactly what Romney is (fiscally conservative, socially moderate), and exactly what most of us are talking about with regards to balancing out Romney as a candidate.

Which can't both be true. If you're putting Romney in group 3, and "ultra-conservatives" in group1, then you (as a fiscal conservative and social moderate) don't fit into group 1. You're in group3. Or... the whole scale is wrong because it's missing an axis or two.

So the Tea Party is "ultra-conservative". Which is what you are, but Mitt is not. And you're a fiscal conservative and moderate socially. Oh. And I think I accidentally left out some bit where you put social-ultra-conservative in a post (and I don't feel like finding it and adding in the quote). The problem is that while I agree that the Tea Party is most focused on fiscal conservative positions, most on the left will insist that they are socially conservative as well (mostly as a "gotta have a boogieman" thing). So you match what the Tea Party is, but not what it's perceived to be. But you don't place Romney in the same group. But that group is exactly what Romney is (fiscally conservative, socially moderate), and exactly what most of us are talking about with regards to balancing out Romney as a candidate.

Which can't both be true. If you're putting Romney in group 3, and "ultra-conservatives" in group1, then you (as a fiscal conservative and social moderate) don't fit into group 1. You're in group3. Or... the whole scale is wrong because it's missing an axis or two.

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 2:45pm by gbaji

Tea Party = ultra-conservative I = ultra-conservative fiscally, moderate socially Ergo: I am not indicative of the typical ultra-conservative

I would wager to say that for this particular election, fiscal policy is in the forefront of more peoples' minds than social policy simply because of the condition our economy has been in for the past 4-5 years.

Because of that, my views as an ultra-conservative are rather important in who gets selected as Romney's running mate.

Is this not nearly as hard to understand as you're making it out to be, or are you just way dumber than I have ben giving you credit for?

I would also argue that Romney isn't nearly as fiscally conservative as he would like people to believe he is, but that's a completely different conversation.

Tea Party = ultra-conservative <--- The term you have not definedI = ultra-conservative fiscally, moderate socially Ergo: I am not indicative of the typical ultra-conservative

Pretend that I have no clue what the word "conservative" means, much less what an "ultra" version of a conservative is. I just feel that sometimes we sling these words around without really thinking about what we're saying. ****. Sometimes I think we use them in order to avoid being clear about what we're saying. We use a term. The folks we're talking to use it back. We all pretend that we're talking about the same thing.

But sometimes we're not. Call me crazy, but I like to check every once in awhile, just to be sure that we really are talking about the same thing here.

For example, I thought that the key platform of the Tea Party *was* fiscal conservative. So your insistence that since you're ultra-conservative fiscally, that this somehow differentiates you from the Tea Party which is just ultra-conservative in general, kinda makes no sense. Is there some other measurement of "ultra-conservative" which the Tea Party has, but you don't?

Quote:

I would also argue that Romney isn't nearly as fiscally conservative as he would like people to believe he is, but that's a completely different conversation.

Sure. Assuming we can even nail down a working definition of fiscal conservative. I know... Crazy talk!

More to it, it's controlled by people whose real sole goal is to fight with Democrats and block the president. Which I'm sure sounds groovy to Gbaji and he'll say "but that's a good thing" but it's also why it has favorabilities of around -20 points. It's the very embodiment of what people talk about when they say Washington is broken.

The only people who'll be interested in a Tea Party acolyte as VP are the already converted.

Tea Party = ultra-conservative <--- The term you have not definedI = ultra-conservative fiscally, moderate socially Ergo: I am not indicative of the typical ultra-conservative

Pretend that I have no clue what the word "conservative" means, much less what an "ultra" version of a conservative is. I just feel that sometimes we sling these words around without really thinking about what we're saying. ****. Sometimes I think we use them in order to avoid being clear about what we're saying. We use a term. The folks we're talking to use it back. We all pretend that we're talking about the same thing.

But sometimes we're not. Call me crazy, but I like to check every once in awhile, just to be sure that we really are talking about the same thing here.

For example, I thought that the key platform of the Tea Party *was* fiscal conservative. So your insistence that since you're ultra-conservative fiscally, that this somehow differentiates you from the Tea Party which is just ultra-conservative in general, kinda makes no sense. Is there some other measurement of "ultra-conservative" which the Tea Party has, but you don't?

Quote:

I would also argue that Romney isn't nearly as fiscally conservative as he would like people to believe he is, but that's a completely different conversation.

Sure. Assuming we can even nail down a working definition of fiscal conservative. I know... Crazy talk!

I'm always a bit puzzled why someone would categorize themselves as anything, especially an "ultra-something" category, because it's basically saying that you're completely ignoring everything except for one side. I don't think that's what you're doing, but why would you build a box around yourself?

Conservative: Someone who wants to conserve a present or past system. There's a heck of a lot of systems, so one can be more or less conservative on a thousand different issues. One could be progressive on hundreds of issues and still wind up in the Conservative camp politically, because there's a past/present system one thinks is more important to preserve. Economics has hundreds of legislated or executed issues. Society has hundreds of legislated or executed issue. Pick your issue. Where are you on the Preserve or Change slidey bar?

Huh, we could go for Preservers or Changers, instead of Conservatives and Progressives. Preservatives and Alternatives? Classicists and Alterators sounds more fun.